Posted on 06/18/2017 2:09:43 PM PDT by narses
Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.
Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."
But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).
Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.
Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.
Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."
Newman’s argument
He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."
Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.
This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.
What is Tradition?
In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
Handing on the faith
Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).
Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.
"Commandments of men"
Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.
He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).
Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).
What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.
The indefectible Church
The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Thanks for your excerpt, but it doesn't sway me from a Biblical viewpoint. Luther was a reformer of Catholicism, but he simply did not carry it far enough, and therefore fell short, IMHO.
This is just illogical and inconsistent.
Jesus' Blood cannot have been shed at the Last Supper, then at Calvary, then at every instance of the Remembrance supper. It was shed once for all, as was His body given once for all. Read Hebrews 9:23-28 thru 10:14 again. If it doesn't sink in, again. And continue until you have confidence in your sin-debt being paid once for all time, forever, and go forward living in freedom from guilt as well as from the burden of erroneous interpretation of the Scriptures respecting this matter.
Believe me, I hate to have to say this, but you need to rethink your position on this affair, else we cannot have unity of thought in any dimension of the four ordinances particular to the Christ-centered disciple.
Reality shows that Jesus' inauguration of this memorial requires the emblems of the real consequences of His one-time suffering for our sins had to be symbolic, His words in figurative-literal meaning, not plain literal. Neither can you certify why you think they are not symbolic.
And why the disciples, trained in interpreting His parables, and not yet having experienced or imagined the events to shortly occur to the Messiah they thought was (but was not) about to establish His earthly Kingdom--why would they not clearly assume that this was symbolic in nature? Did they truly eat roasted flesh (no)? drink freshly drawn blood (no)? They would have spit it out if they thought it was human substance. Like the ritual of water baptism, they obviously must have thought that it was symbolic in nature.
Anything else would have been insane and enslaving, not intelligent and freedom-granting.
Excellent use of the 1 Corinthians citation regarding schismatic leadership!
If not flat-out a misrepresentation of the Matthew 16:18, it is an error in understanding grammatically what Jesus was saying in that verse.
First, you need to show that this sobriquet for Simon bar Jona was not a new one just given at the time Jesus was speaking. Rather, this nickname had been in common use amongst the group for about two and a half years previous, when Jesus called him "Kefas" the first time He saw Simon, at the beginning of His public ministry (Jn. 1:42), and his fellow disciples saw it exactly fit to apply to his personality characteristics.
Secondly, this word is not Hebrew; it is of Chaldean origin, and appears only twice in the OT (Job 30:6, Jer. 4:29). As compared to the other OT words for stone or rock, it is never used to refer to God or His attributes, and thus separates the qualities of Simon as not comparative to those of The Christ.
Thirdly, you have to realize that this was an unusual kind of stone--a hollow one--sort of like a geode, I suppose, in this case.
Fourth, the word for this special rock is masculine in gender, and thus when translated, must be of the masculine gender in the Greek word translating it. "Petros" in Jn. 1:42 and Mt. 16:18 is not made masculine because Simon is a male; it is a masculine noun selected for Simon because he is male.
Fifth, the nickname is not applied by Jesus to Simon as a sign of rock-like strength, steadiness, reliability, and imperturbability, as most would like to imagine. That would require a different word than Kefas, or Petros. No, that name Kephas, a hollow rock, speaks not of the qualities of a rock, but of the composition of stone: the density, the impenetrability of Simon's mental capabilities, that result in his insensitivity to the abstract, the stolidity of insisting on exercising his will over that of others, of fickleness when a thought consumed him, and of lack of spiritual depth compensated for only when the Spirit of God came over Him; a "rock-head," so to speak.
On the other hand, the Greek word "petra" is of the feminine gender, and differentiates it as a massive outcropping escarpment whose qualities represent those of God and Christ, repeated over and over again in the OT Scriptures. Though of the feminine gender in Greek, it could refer to the Christ (a male) because of its qualities. Or it may refer to the foundational saying verbalized by Peter, not from his own mental processes, but placed in His mind supernaturally. The disciples obviously did not have the New Testament, but the were very well aware that "petra" did not refer to Simon, whose characteristics they were also quite familiar with, as a "kefa/petros."
In fact, when Simon came out with the statement, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!", doubtless it was an utter surprise to him (who had not so far admitted this concept) as it was to the others present (who had already voiced this truth). And actually Simon was so dense that Jesus remarked the unlikeliness of him saying such a thing:
"Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood(neither your reasoning nor of those about you) hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven!"
However, since that foundational statement was a clear, concise, and complete prophecy, He went on and announced:
"And I say also unto thee, (On the one hand)That thou art Peter(the "hollow rock"), and (on the other hand)upon this rock(this foundational statement) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (my interpretive superscripts). This agrees with what the ante-Nicene fathers said, also, IIRC.
Your interpretation does not, grammatically, historically, contextually, or theologically make any sense.
GMTA
That doesn't mean you can IGNORE the fact that Christ Himself called Peter SATAN!!
I ain't the pope!
Speaking of which; How's YOUR love for the one you have NOW??
Sad to see that you FAIL to acknowledge what your own Early Church Fathers taught is DIFFERENT than what your chosen religion teaches today.
Luke 23:40-43
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
It says it was NOT found in the seven CATHOLIC churches mentioned in Revelation.
Where does Scripture PROVE that Catholkic teaching is SEVERELY lacking??
Oh yeah: them 7 churches again.
Where does the BOOK that Rome assembled say that MARY is to be a co-mediatrix?
Oh yeah; it doesn't.
Now I admit that THIS one WAS Rome supplied.
Too bad so many of it's believers actually NEED one!
We can't just show where Rome's teaching is WRONG using common sense?
In the Religion forum, on a thread titled Scripture and Tradition , FatherofFive wrote:
(If I were a Catholic; I'd try to slither away from TRADTION as well; knowing that the BOOK I purport to follow will show something different.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.